Bibliographic record
Abstract
All introductory textbooks to the New Testament have something to say about the miracles and resurrection of Jesus, sometimes implicitly but more often explicitly. Not surprisingly, conservative textbooks take a conservative approach, rejecting outright the “naturalism” that governs other human and natural sciences. Yet even liberal textbooks stop short of assuming a fully naturalistic paradigm. This paper analyses the assumptions that serve as the foundation of both conservative and liberal treatments of the miraculous, and joins others in calling for the academic study of Christian Origins to situate itself more fully within the academic study of religion. Tous les manuels d’introduction au Nouveau Testament ont quelque chose à dire sur les miracles et la résurrection de Jésus, parfois implicitement, mais le plus souvent de manière explicite. Comme on pouvait s'y attendre, les manuels conservateurs adoptent une approche conservatrice, en rejetant purement et simplement le « naturalisme » qui régit les autres sciences humaines et naturelles. Pourtant, même les manuels libéraux s'arrêtent avant d’assumer un paradigme entièrement naturaliste. Cet article analyse les hypothèses qui servent de base aux traitements conservateurs et libéraux du miraculeux, et s'unit à d’autres pour l’appel à une étude universitaire des origines chrétiennes afin de s'intégrer pleinement dans l’étude scientifique de la religion.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".